{"id":"alj-H302750-2025-08-05","awcc_number":"H302750","decision_date":"2025-08-05","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Kevin Briggs","employer_name":"Utc Railcar Repair Services, LLC","title":"BRIGGS VS. UTC RAILCAR REPAIR SERVICES, LLC AWCC# H302750 August 05, 2025","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:4"],"injury_keywords":["shoulder","back","neck","rotator cuff","strain","knee","cervical","wrist"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/BRIGGS_KEVIN_H302750_20250805.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"BRIGGS_KEVIN_H302750_20250805.pdf","text_length":73849,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n                                                                CLAIM NO.:H302750 \n \nKEVIN BRIGGS, EMPLOYEE  CLAIMANT \n \nUTC RAILCAR REPAIR SERVICES, LLC,   \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                              RESPONDENT    \n                                        \nOLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY/ \nCONSTITUTION STATE SERVICES, LLC, \nCARRIER/TPA                                                                                                         RESPONDENT  \n \n \nOPINION FILED AUGUST 5, 2025 \n             \nHearing held before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE CHANDRA L. BLACK, in Texarkana, \nMiller County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented  by the Honorable GREGORY R.  GILES, Attorney  at  Law, Texarkana, \nArkansas. \n \nRespondents represented  by the  Honorable SCOTT  ZUERKER, Attorney at  Law, Fort  Smith, \nArkansas. \n \n \n      STATEMENT OF THE CASE \nOn May 6, 2025, the above-captioned case came on for a hearing before the Commission \nin Texarkana, Arkansas.  A pre-hearing telephone conference was held in this matter on February \n12, 2025.  A Pre-hearing Order was entered on that same day.  The parties’ pre-hearing information \nfilings have been made a part of the record without objection; and thus, been marked accordingly, \nas Commission’s Exhibit No. 1. \n During the pre-hearing telephone conference, and/or at the hearing, the parties agreed to \nthe following stipulations: \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of the within \nclaim. \n2. The employee-employer-insurance carrier relationship existed among the parties, on  \n\nBRIGGS– H302750 \n2 \n \nMarch 16\n1\n, 2023. \n \n3. The Claimant’s  average  weekly  wage was $908.72 on  the  day  of  his  alleged \ncompensable injury.  His weekly compensation rates are $672.00 for temporary total \ndisability/TTD, and $467.00 for temporary total disability/TTD.  \n \n 4.     The Claimant reached maximum medical improvement/MMI on September 24\n2\n, 2024. \n \n 5.     The Claimant received short-term disability in the amount of $321.00 per week, which  \n                    the Respondents are entitled to an offset in the event indemnity benefits are awarded. \n \n6.     The Respondents have controverted this claim in its entirety.     \n    \n7.     The parties agreed that all issues not litigated herein are reserved under the Arkansas   \n        Workers’ Compensation Act.        \n         \n8.     During the hearing, the parties stipulated that if the Claimant drew unemployment \n        benefits during a period that overlaps with the award of temporary total disability      \n                 compensation, then Respondents are entitled to an offset.  (Tr. 47)  \n During the  pre-hearing  telephone conference, the  parties  agreed  to  litigate  the  following \nissues:   \n1. Whether  the  Claimant  sustained  a  compensable  injury  to  the  left shoulder/bicep \nrupture on March 16, 2023, during and in the course of his employment with the \nrespondent-employer. \n \n2. Whether the Claimant is entitled to temporary total disability benefits from April \n28, 2023, through September 23, 2024. \n \n3. Whether  the  Claimant  sustained  a 4%  impairment  and  wage-loss  disability \n(Claimant’s counsel amended this issue from 2% to 4% at the beginning of the \nhearing Tr. 9).  \n \n4. Whether the Claimant is entitled to reasonable and necessary medical treatment of \nrecord, as well as future treatment.  \n \n5. Whether the Claimant’s attorney is entitled to a controverted attorney’s fee. \n \n \n \n1\n The Claimant’s counsel amended the Claimant’s injury from March 17, 2023, to March 16.  \n  \n \n2\n Counsel also amended the Claimant’s MMI date from September 23, 2024, to September 24.    \n\nBRIGGS– H302750 \n3 \n \n The Claimant’s and Respondents’ contentions are set out in their respective response to the \npre-hearing questionnaire and those made at the beginning of the hearing.  Said contentions are as \nfollows: \n Claimant:  \n The Claimant contends that he sustained a compensable injury to his left shoulder on or \nabout March 17, 2023. \n He  contends  that  the  medical  treatment  he  has  received  to  date  has  been  reasonable, \nnecessary, and related to his compensable injuries such that Respondents should be ordered to pay \nfor same. \n The  Claimant  contends  entitlement  to  temporary  total  disability  benefits  from  April  28, \n2023, through September 23, 2024. \n He also contends the medical treatment received to date has been reasonably necessary and \nrelated such that the Respondents should be ordered to pay for same, including reimbursement to \nBlue Cross Blue Shield for any expenses paid for medical treatment.  \n The  Claimant  contends  the  Respondent  should  be  ordered  to  pay  attorney’s  fees  as \nprovided by law. \n At the beginning of the hearing, the Claimant contended that he is entitled to a 25% wage \nloss disability. \nRespondents: \n The Respondent contends that they have controverted this claim in its entirety. \n                  FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \nFrom a review of the record as a whole, to include medical reports, documentary evidence, \nand other matters properly before the Commission, and having had an opportunity to listen to the \n\nBRIGGS– H302750 \n4 \n \ntestimony of the Claimant and observe his demeanor, I hereby make the following findings of fact \nand conclusions of law in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-704 (Repl. 2012): \n1.     The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. \n      2.      I hereby accept the above-mentioned proposed stipulations as fact. \n            3.      The Claimant proved by a preponderance of the credible evidence that he sustained a  \n                     compensable injury to his left shoulder on March 16, 2023, during and in the course \n                     and scope of his employment with UTC.       \n                      \n 4.     The Claimant proved by a preponderance of the credible evidence that all the medical  \n         treatment of record was reasonably necessary in connection with the left shoulder      \n         injury received by him.  No further medical treatment has been recommended for the   \n         Claimant’s left shoulder injury.  \n \n5.     The Claimant proved his entitled to temporary total disability compensation from  \n        April 28, 2023, through and until September 23, 2024.  \n \n6.     The Claimant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he sustained a 5% whole \n        person permanent impairment for his left shoulder injury. \n \n7.    The Claimant proved by a preponderance of the credible evidence that he sustained  \n       wage loss disability in the amount of 22%.   \n \n8.   The parties stipulated that the Respondents have controverted this claim in its entirety.       \n      Therefore, the Claimant’s attorney is entitled to a controverted attorney’s fee on the  \n       indemnity benefits awarded to the Claimant herein.  \n                    \nSummary of Evidence \n The entire record is made up of the May 6, 2025, hearing transcript, which includes the \ndocumentary  evidence  of Commission’s Exhibit No.  1; Claimant’s Exhibit No.  1,  which  is  an \nAbstract of the Table of Contents consisting of 13 pages; and Claimant’s Exhibit No. 2 includes \nthe Table of Contents comprising eight pages and 308 numbered pages of medical records. The \nClaimant, Kevin Briggs, was the only witness to testify during the hearing. \n                                     \n \n\nBRIGGS– H302750 \n5 \n \n                HEARING TESTIMONY \n  \nMr. Kevin Briggs/the Claimant \n As of the date of the hearing, the Claimant was 53 years of age.  He graduated from high \nschool in 1992.  Majority of the Claimant’s high school and school years included regular classes, \nbut  he also  took some  special  education  classes.    According  to  the  Claimant, he  was  diagnosed \nwith dyslexia and ADD/attention deficit disorder around the age of five.  The Claimant confirmed \nthat he ended up having to repeat some grades in school along the path.  He specifically testified \nthat he repeated the 2\nnd\n and 6\nth\n grades.  The Claimant confirmed that he can read and do simple \nmath.    However,  the  Claimant  denied  that  he  attended  any  college  or  vocational  school after \ngraduating from high school.  Per the Claimant’s testimony, he served as a volunteer firefighter \nfor roughly 18 years.  He stopped volunteering with the fire department in 2009.  The Claimant \nconfirmed that during his years as a volunteer firefighter, he had to go through some certifications \nand training associated with his firefighting service. \n About the Claimant’s alleged injury, he confirmed that he is asserting an injury while \nworking for Union Tank Car/UTC Repair Service, on March 16, 2023.  He began working there \nin November 2022.  The Claimant testified that he was hired in to repair tanks, rail, and hopper \ncars.  \n The Claimant testified: \nQ Can you describe the general job duties, the expectations of that job in terms \nof what you were doing there on a daily basis? \nA I was assigned a car and was given a tablet with each repair that needed to \nbe done either by welding, cutting, replacing parts, or generalizing things like that. \nQ Well, maintaining and repairing the railcars? \nA Yes. \nQ What  type  of  lifting  and carrying  of  weights  were  expected  to  have  to  be \nable to carry out from day to day? \nA It varies from day to day, but some of the heaviest was a hundred pounds \nthat we had to pick up and put back onto the car. \n\nBRIGGS– H302750 \n6 \n \n \n According to the Claimant, he has prior work experience doing this same or similar type \nof work before he went to work for UTC.  According to the Claimant, he had previously performed \nthis type of work for about five years.  However, in terms of doing welding and maintenance type \nof work, the Claimant has been doing that type of work over the years for various places over the \nlast 18  to  20  years.      His  hourly pay at  the  time  of  hire for  UTC  was  $21.39.    The Claimant \nconfirmed  that  his  pay  remained  unchanged  on  the  day  of  his  alleged  injury.   Typically,  the \nClaimant worked a standard 40-hour workweek, with some overtime.  According to the Claimant, \non average, each week he worked 45 to 48 hours.  The Claimant testified that he worked the night \nshift, which was from 7:00 p.m. until 8:00 a.m., the next morning.  \n When the Claimant went to work for UTC, he was on medications for diabetes and back \npain.  The Claimant confirmed that he takes hydrocodone for his back.  He confirmed that he has \nundergone two prior back surgeries, one in 2011 and another one in 2012.  Per the Claimant, he \ntakes two 7.5 milligrams of hydrocodone, twice a day to manage his pain.  The Claimant is insulin-\ndependent, he confirmed that he had this condition at the time of his hire with the railcar company.  \nHe testified that he takes Effexor for his temper, which helps to calm him down.  The Claimant \nalso suffers from high blood pressure, which is controlled with medication.  In addition to these \nconditions,  the  Claimant had problems with  his  neck  and  wrists  prior  to  going  to  work  for  the \nrailcar company.  He testified that he started having issues with his wrists in 2013 or 2014.  Per \nthe Claimant, his problems with his wrists began with pain that radiated into his hands and fingers.  \nHis neck issues started in 2003 or 2004.  The Claimant testified that he has occasional flare-ups of \ninflammation, for which he gets a shot to boost and bring down the inflammation.   \n Before his employment with the railcar company, the Claimant admitted that he had prior \ntreatment  for his  left  shoulder,  in  the  form  of  injections.   The  Claimant  testified  that  he  was \n\nBRIGGS– H302750 \n7 \n \ndiagnosed with bursitis in the left shoulder.  He testified that prior symptoms of the left shoulder \nfor  which  he  sought  medical  treatment  included  stiffness  and some pain.    According  to  the \nClaimant, he had some pain but “not a whole lot of pain.”  The first time he sought treatment for \nhis left shoulder was in 2016 or 2017.  However, the Claimant denied that he ever had to see a \nspecialist  for  his  left  shoulder.    The  Claimant  did  not  recall  having  an  MRI  of  the  left  shoulder \nprior to his alleged work-related accident of March 16, 2023.   \n When the Claimant began working for UTC, his family doctor was Wendy Gammon.  Prior \nto his alleged work injury of March 16, 2023, the Claimant confirmed that when he saw her on \nJanuary 14, 2023, he complained of stiffness and some pain.  Per these medical notes, Dr. Gammon \nreported  in  the  history part of  her  clinical  notes that the  Claimant  had bursitis,  for  which joint \ninjections provided relief  in  the  past.    The  Claimant  confirmed  that  this  is correct and  what  he \nreported to Dr.  Gammon.  He testified that she gave him an injection in his shoulder, which helped \nto relieve his symptoms.   \n The Claimant confirmed that prior to March 16, 2023, he performed all aspects of his job \nwith the railcar repair company.  He denied missing any days from work due to his left shoulder \ncondition. \n On  March  16,  2023,  the  Claimant  testified  that  he  lifted  the  car  and  removed  the  wheel \nsets.  According to the Claimant, he used heavy duty hydraulic jacks to pick up one end of the car, \nso  that  he  could  remove  the entire wheel  set.  He agreed  that  he  was  lifting  the  car  up, to get \nunderneath it.  Once the Claimant had it lifted above him, he testified that he used a pair of pliers \nto take the wheel sets off.  Next, the Claimant rolled the wheel set out, and started to remove the \nwheels so that he could spread the side frame apart to replace what is called the brake beam.  At \nthat point, the Claimant was swinging a sledgehammer that weighed roughly ten pounds.  \n\nBRIGGS– H302750 \n8 \n \n The Claimant’s counsel questioned him further: \n Q    These sides that you’re describing, what is it that ......   \n Why would you need a hammer to do that? \n A    Certain frames, side frames, they had what they called a ride  \n cushion, which is, basically, a wedge that just free floats, and they  \n            are tight all the time, so you have to take a hammer, a sledgehammer \n to hit the inside of the side frame to spread the side frame out so that  \n            we can get that part out. \n Q    All right.  So as you described the process, what were you doing then?  \n            A    I had taken the one side set of wheels off and started hitting the \n           inside of the side frame with the sledgehammer, and as I was swinging, \n            that’s when I felt and heard the pops in my shoulder the two pops in my \n           shoulder. \n Q    In your left shoulder? \n A    My left shoulder.  Yes, sir. \n Q    When you say you heard pops, what did you hear?  \n A    Almost like a .22 going off. \n Q    What sort of pain did you experience? \n A    Extreme pain. \n Q    Where was your pain? \n A    Throughout my shoulder. \n Q    Can you be more specific? \n A    The sides and the front. \n Q    If you’ll describe for us, when you say the front, where are you  \n             talking about? \n A    Where my biceps connect to my shoulder.    \n Q    When you say the side, where are you talking about? \n            A    The area where the rotator cuff is. \n  \n The  Claimant  further  explained  that  his  pain  was  on  the  left  side  of  the  top  of  his left \nshoulder.  According to the Claimant, he tried to continue working but figured out really quick he \ncould not do so.  The Claimant confirmed that he at once reported what had happened to him to \nhis managing lead person, Jeff Sapp.  Although there were others working in proximity with the \nClaimant, no one saw his incident.  Per the Claimant, he was working alone.  \n About the  reporting  of  his  injury  to  Mr.  Sapp,  the  Claimant  testified  that  he  told  him  to \nreport his  injury  to the  area  manager,  Michael  Delgado.  At  that  point,  Mr.  Delgado  had  the \nClaimant fill out an incident report and gave him an ice pack to put on his shoulder.  Thereafter, \n\nBRIGGS– H302750 \n9 \n \nMr. Delgado sent the Claimant home for the night.  Next, the Claimant was shown a copy of his \nexhibit, which was from page 41.  The Claimant confirmed that it is the statement that he provided \nmanagement.  This statement mirrors the Claimant’s testimony.  He admitted to having signed the \ndocument. \n The  Claimant confirmed  that  he  sought  medical  attention  from  the  company  doctor, the \nnext morning, on March 17, 2023.  He admitted that he treated initially with Dr. Raker at Ark-La-\nTex Health.  At that time, the Claimant testified that he had pain in the top part of his shoulder, \nand he could hardly move it.  Per the Claimant, he could barely reach down to tie his shoes.  Dr. \nRaker  took  x-rays  and  placed  the  Claimant’s  arm in  a sling  and  placed  him  on  light  duty \nrestrictions.  The Claimant ended up seeking treatment with Dr. Raker four times.  Ultimately, Dr. \nRaker ordered an MRI of the Claimant’s left shoulder.  The Claimant admitted that workers’  \ncompensation paid for the visits he had with Dr. Raker. \n Next,  the  Claimant  was  shown  an  exhibit  packet  with  documents showing that  the \nrespondent-employer controverted the claim on May 2.  After they denied the claim, UTC did not \ncontinue to offer him light duty work.  The Claimant agreed that his last day of work was April \n28, 2023.   He confirmed that he was able to follow-up with a specialist after he underwent the \nMRI.  Dr. Mitchell evaluated the Claimant after he had the MRI.  On May 19, 2023, he performed \nsurgery on the Claimant’s shoulder.  The Claimant paid  for  the  surgery using his own personal \nhealth insurance, Blue Cross, and Blue Shield.  However, he had to pay for out-of-pocket expenses, \nsuch as deductibles, and things of that nature.  Per the Claimant, he has paid approximately $600.00 \nfor out-of-pocket expenses.   \n According to the Claimant, he had the surgery because “the ligament in his biceps had torn \nloose” from his shoulder.  As a result, they had to go in and repair it by reattaching it.  After his \n\nBRIGGS– H302750 \n10 \n \nsurgery, the Claimant underwent physical therapy for roughly eight or nine weeks.  The Claimant \nconfirmed  that  surgery  helped  his  shoulder.    While  off  work,  the  Claimant  drew short-term \ndisability for about six months.  Thereafter, he ended up applying for long-term disability and for \nshort-term disability for a brief period of time.  He confirmed that Aflac paid him approximately \nfour or five checks, which totaled $1,800.00. \n The Claimant agreed that Dr. Mitchell’s progress notes and physical therapy records from \nSeptember 6, 2023, show that Dr. Mitchell ordered a follow-up MRI and arthrogram because he \nwas  having  symptoms  of  pain  and  still  did  not  have  full  mobility  of  his  arm.    The  Claimant \nspecifically explained, “I couldn’t pick my arm up and straight out lift it up, and I couldn’t twist \nmy arm in any direction without pain.”  However, Dr. Mitchell did not have any recommendations \nafter  these  diagnostic  tests  were  ordered.  The  Claimant  testified  that he  saw Dr.  Syed for \nhydrocodone pain management.  He admitted that after the MRI and arthrogram had been ordered, \nDr. Mitchell wanted to refer him for an injection in his neck to see if that might be creating some \nof the symptoms he had been complaining about.   \n Ultimately, the Claimant was able to get an injection in the neck that had been suggested \nto him by Dr. Syed.  He denied that this treatment modality provided him with any relief of his \nsymptoms about his shoulder.  The Claimant confirmed that Dr. Mitchell referred him to another \ndoctor,  Dr.  Sharp,  for  an  impairment  rating.    He  admitted  that  he  saw  Dr.  Sharp  just for  one \nevaluation which was on September 23, 2024.  The Claimant agreed that Dr. Sharp conducted an \nexamination of his shoulder and arm.  Per the Claimant, Dr. Sharp lifted his arm up and moved it \naround and did some measurements.  According to the Claimant, Dr. Sharp spent approximately \none hour with him.  Dr. Sharp did not assign him any written physical restrictions or limitations.  \nHe denied he had a job with UTC by the time Dr. Sharp addressed his permanent impairment.        \n\nBRIGGS– H302750 \n11 \n \n  The Claimant confirmed that UTC sent him a letter on November 8, 2023, informing him \nthat they could  not  continue  to  hold  his  job.   At that point, Dr. Sharp  assigned  the  Claimant  an \nimpairment rating.  The Claimant testified that his shoulder was still limited in terms of how he \ncould move it.  He explained more specifically the condition of his shoulder and the limited range \nof motion: “Being able to pick my arm up and out to the side still pain with some rotation.  Like \nholding my arm up and twisting it side to side.”  According to the Claimant, he experiences a lot \nof pain if he tries to stick his arm straight out to the left side.  He denied being able to fully extend \nhis arm straight out to his left side, without severe pain.  However, the Claimant admitted that he \ncould move his left arm in front of him directly.  The Claimant denied that he could move his arm \nin front of him and take it up over his head.  \n Per  the  Claimant,  he can lift, carry, and  manage  fifteen  pounds.    The  Claimant  further \ntestified that anything more than that causes his arm to hurt.  He testified that it causes him to try \nand pull his arm straight out to the side, but if he moves it to the side that is where the problem \ncomes in.   \n He  confirmed  that  he  has  performed  some  job  searches  for  work.    Per  the Claimant,  his \nefforts  include  online  applications.    The  Claimant  testified  that  he  has  put  in  approximately \nseventeen  applications.    According  to  the Claimant,  he  has  put  in  applications  for  a  forklift \noperator,  anything  relating  to  operating  equipment,  office  work,  and  warehouse  type  jobs.   The \nClaimant  denied  that  he  would  be  able  to physically do  the type  of  work at  UTC he  was doing \neven if his job had still been available.  In the job at UTC, the Claimant explained that you must \nput your  arms  and  body  in  awkward  positions  to  be  able  to  get  to  what  you need to  work  on.  \nAccording  to  the  Claimant, he must be  able  hold  his  arms  straight  out,  sideways,  and  crawl  in \nholes.    The  Claimant  also  denied  that  he  would  be  able  to  perform  any  of  the  welding  jobs  he \n\nBRIGGS– H302750 \n12 \n \nperformed  in  the  last  eighteen  years.  He  testified  that  he  would  not  be  able  to  put  his  arms  in \ncertain positions to do the job, because his shoulder will not allow him to do that type of work.  \nHis  deposition  testimony shows that  years  ago  he  worked  as  a  security  officer.   The  Claimant \ndenied that he would be able to work as a security officer.  He agreed that he could manage the \npart  of observing and watching,  but  he  would  not  be  able  exert  physical  force.    The  Claimant \ndenied  that  he  has  had  an  interview  or  gotten  a  response  from  anybody  in  terms  of getting  an \nopportunity to interview for a job.  He confirmed that he applied for unemployment benefits and \ndrew $2,300.00 for three or four months.     \n Financially,  the  Claimant  testified  that  his  wife  works.    He  explained  that  without  his \nincome, it is incredibly stressful.  The Claimant agreed that he is in the process of applying for \nSocial Security Disability benefits but has not completed the process.  He confirmed he has been \nout of the work force for two years.  According to the Claimant, his physical activities since he has \nnot been working and have not had  a job to be able to return to work is limited.  However, the \nClaimant can operate and drive a vehicle.  He lives in a house, and can take care of his own lawn, \nexcept for the weed eating.  Per the Claimant, he is not able to do any weed eating because he is \nunable to swing the weed eater around.  He uses a zero-turn lawn mower.  The Claimant can do \nsimple  things  such  as  getting  groceries out  of the  car.    He  denied  having  any  hobbies,  such  as \nhunting and fishing.  He spends his free time on his tablet, doing housework and yard work, using \nthe mower.  The Claimant continues to look for work.  He does stretches, but he does not have \nweights or anything of that nature.  The Claimant was sent home with bands to use but they started \nto deteriorate.   \n Since  October  2023,  the  Claimant  has  not  returned  to  Dr.  Mitchell  for  any  follow-up \nmedical  treatment.   He  continues  to  take  hydrocodone,  which  is  being prescribed for  his  back \n\nBRIGGS– H302750 \n13 \n \nissues that he has had since 2014 or 2015.  According to the Claimant, the pain medication provides \nhim with benefits (pain relief) for his shoulder condition.  He stated that he believes his arm does \nnot have as much range of motion and strength now as it did when he saw Dr. Sharp.  He confirmed \nthat he saw Dr. Hugghins for a second opinion evaluation of his shoulder.   The Claimant testified \nthat he examined his arm and shoulder.  He spent about an hour with the Claimant examining his \narm.  He described the nature of his examination as the same as what Dr. Sharp performed.  The \nClaimant  confirmed  that  he  took  control  of  his  arm  and  did  some  measurements.    He also \nconfirmed that the Respondents have not paid for his medical treatment or compensated him for \nthe  permanent  impairment  of  his  shoulder.    The  Claimant  confirmed  that  he  is  asking  for \nconsideration of the higher impairment rating of 4%. \n Doctors  placed  the  Claimant  at  maximum  medical  improvement  for  his  shoulder  in \nSeptember of 2024.  He testified that he is asking for wage-loss disability of 25%.  He confirmed \nthat his average weekly wage at the time of his accident was $932.00 a week.  The Claimant has \nnot been able to earn any money since his doctor released him from care. \n On cross-examination, the Claimant was again asked to confirm that before March 2023, \nhe had prior problems with his left shoulder.  However, he testified that after the incident, he had \na different kind of problem.  He admitted that he has gone riding four wheelers since his accident.  \nThe Claimant confirmed that James McShane sent a letter in November terminating him.  At that \ntime, he offered the Claimant the ability to come back and re-apply or be re-hire.  He admitted that \nhe has not applied for work at UTC since his release.  The Claimant was asked if there was a reason \nfor him not applying for a position with the company.  He replied, “I don’t know if this politically \ncorrect but bad blood.”  The Claimant admitted that he does not want to return to work for them.  \nHe admitted that he was not aware of any security jobs that involved monitoring and had no risk \n\nBRIGGS– H302750 \n14 \n \nof getting involved in an altercation.  The Claimant admitted that he has not looked or tried to find \na security job.  He confirmed that he does not believe he could perform that type of job.  \n The Claimant admitted that he worked for Lowes’s at one point.  He testified that he could \nstill  do  that  type  of  work,  depending  on  the  type  of  lifting  involved  in  the  job.  The  Claimant \ntestified that depending on the department, you must lift anywhere from half a pound to as much \nas twenty-five pounds.  He agreed that Lowe’s has multiple departments.  The Claimant admitted \nthat he has not looked for any kind of work in customer service or retail.  However, the Claimant \ntestified that he has narrowed his focus down in terms of looking for work involving jobs such as \na forklift driver.  The Claimant confirmed that he has a job history of operating heavy equipment \nsuch  as a forklift  driver.    He agreed  that  there  are  jobs  outside  that  field  that  might  have  jobs \navailable, but he has not even considered.  The Claimant denied that he is contending he is unable \nto work.   \n Under further cross examination, the Claimant testified: \nQ  And the sad reality of it is there are all kinds of jobs out there that you feel like \nyou can do, it’s just that no one has given you a chance or even offered you an \ninterview? \nA  Correct. \nQ  So that doesn’t really have anything to do with your physical ability to do the \njob, they’re just not giving you a chance to get a foot in the door, are they? \nA  No.  \n The Claimant confirmed that he drew unemployment benefits in Arkansas last year.  He \nwas unable to recall if he drew these benefits before or after Dr. Mitchell sent him for a rating.  Per  \nthe Claimant, he was unsure whether he went for the rating in March 2024.  He testified that he  \napplied for a job at Amentum.  According to the Claimant, they repair a lot of things and have  \ncontracts with Red River Army Depot.  He confirmed that he previously worked at the Depot.  The  \nClaimant agreed that he could drive a tractor trailer.  However, the Claimant denied that he has \n\nBRIGGS– H302750 \n15 \n \nexplored job opportunities in that field.         \n On redirect examination, the Claimant “bad blood” with UTC.  He testified that they fought  \nhis claim for unemployment benefits, and just the way they let him go.  According to the Claimant,  \nUTC told the hearing officer he voluntarily left although he had paperwork saying they let him  \ngo.  Per the Claimant, as a result, it is a buildup of things.  The Claimant confirmed that he has put \nin a number of applications, but he is not getting an interview.  He agreed that with him being out \nof the workforce for the last two years and potentially a gap in his resume plays a part in him  \ngetting a call back.  \n On recross examination, the Claimant testified that he could use his left arm, and it is fully  \nfunctional for a lot of things, it is mostly a positional issue.  He confirmed that he testified during \nhis deposition that he can drive his zero-turn mower.  The Claimant admitted that it involves  \npushing and pulling levers out in front of him and he can do that type of activity.  He confirms \nthat those controls would be similar to the controls in a bobcat or a skid steer.  The Claimant agreed  \nthat when he has past work involving working out at a landfill and running heavy equipment.  He \nadmitted that he operated a dozer, what they call a scraper.  The Claimant testified that it is a piece \nof equipment that has a belly pan that scrapes up dirt, packer similar to what you see on the roads \n when they are packing the dirt.  Per the Claimant, he has never used a backhoe. \n The Claimant confirmed that as a forklift driver, the going rate is $21.00 an hour.  He was  \nnot sure of the rate of pay for a dozer driver.  He testified that he has not had any prior accidents  \ninvolving his left arm.  The Claimant stated that he has not been hunting or fishing in many years.   \nPer the Claimant, he got rid of his boat in 2019.  \n                         \n \n\nBRIGGS– H302750 \n16 \n \n                   MEDICAL EVIDENCE \n A review of the medical records shows that the Claimant sought medical attention for his \nprimary care under the attention of Wendy Gammon, FNP-C, FNP.  The Claimant has been treated \nfor several conditions unrelated to his alleged shoulder injury.  These conditions include insomnia, \ndepression,  obesity  and  hyperlipidemia,  vitamin D  disorder,  diabetes,  high  blood  pressure,  and \nanxiety disorder. \n The  Claimant  sought medical  attention  for  his  left  shoulder from  Nurse  Gammon \ndiagnosed the Claimant with left shoulder bursitis, on January 14, 2023.   \n On March 16, 2023, Jeff Sapp, a coworker, wrote the following statement: \nI (Jeff Sapp) was walking past Kevin Briggs about 11:30 to 11:45 as he was taking apart \nsome side frames.  I witnessed him pick a sledge hammer up and prepare to swing it.  From \nwhat I saw Kevin started to swing it like putting a golf ball.  Kevin put very little effort \ninto the swing and suddenly started to stumble.  Kevin came up to me shortly after that and \ntold me that he thinks he messed his shoulder up.  I referred him to Michael Delgado to \nreport his injury. \n \n Mr. Jeff Gregory authored a note on March 17, 2023.  He wrote: \nI (Jeff Gregory) witnessed Kevin Briggs working on a set of trucks that required a set of \nbrake beams to be changed out.  He was in the process of spreading the side sills far enough \napart  to  remove  the  old  beams  using  a  sledgehammer.    This is normal  and  a  pry  bar  is \nusually all that it takes.  In this case I never actually saw him swing the hammer to move \nthe side sill.  I did notice him dragging the hammer to his work areas prior to any work \nbeing done.  This was approximately 30 minutes after the start of the shift.  He waited till \nshortly after he drug the hammer to his work area to come report that he hurt his shoulder \nto the Area Manager who was covering for the night shift supervisor who was on vacation.  \nI never actually saw him swing the hammer.    \n \n On March 17, 2023, the Claimant sought medical attention under the care of Dr. James D.  \nRaker.  At that that time, the Claimant’s chief complaint was very severe frequent sharp shoulder \npain  on  the  left.   X-rays of the Claimant’s shoulder revealed no gross fractures, dislocation, or \nother defects.  Dr. Raker diagnosed the Claimant with an “unspecified strain of the left shoulder \n\nBRIGGS– H302750 \n17 \n \njoint.”  The Claimant reported the date of injury as being March 16, 2023.  He gave a history of \nswinging a long hand 9-pound hammer, midswing and his left shoulder popped twice.  Per these \nclinic notes, the Claimant had two prior back surgeries and three knee surgeries.  Dr. Raker noted \nthat the Claimant was already on opinions because of two prior back surgeries.  The Claimant’s \nsubjective complaints show that on a numerical rating scale of 0 to 10, he had a value rating of 9 \ndue  to frequent  sharp  shoulder  pain  on  the  left.    Dr.  Raker  stated that  his observation  of  the \nClaimant revealed a normal level of physical flinching guarding that coordinated with the level of \nmuscle spasm reported by the patient.  The Claimant was instructed to perform home  exercises \nand follow up in three days.  Dr. Raker instructed the Claimant to use cold packs, and OTC meds \nwere discussed.   \n The Claimant was seen in a follow-up clinic by Dr. Raker on March 20, 2023.  At that time, \nthe Claimant reported a history of any motion invoking severe pain in the shoulder.  Passive motion \nby Dr. Raker caused pain at 80 degrees of abduction and with both internal and external rotation.   \nPer  these  clinical  notes,  Dr.  Raker  stated  that  the  Claimant  needed  an  urgent  MRI  of  the  left \nshoulder due to severe due to risk of frozen shoulder due to immobility.  Also, Dr. Raker stated \nthat the Claimant was at risk for a frozen shoulder due to immobility.  As a result, he instructed \nthe Claimant to perform daily home exercises.  Dr. Raker instructed the Claimant follow-up for \nreevaluation in five days. \n Dr. Raker saw the Claimant for follow-up evaluation on March 24, 2023, due to his left \nshoulder condition.  The Claimant reported an improvement in his symptoms compared to his last \nvisit.  On physical examination, Dr. Raker noted that he observed that the Claimant had an increase \nin abduction  with  less  pain,  but  internal  rotation was still “very  limited and  very  painful.”  Dr. \nRaker noted that the Claimant’s pain level was at a level of 6 with frequent sharp shoulder pain on \n\nBRIGGS– H302750 \n18 \n \nthe left which was quite an improvement since the previous treatment.  On that same say, Dr. Raker \nreferred the Claimant for an MRI of the left shoulder.     \n On April 6, 2023, Dr. Raker reported that the MRI showed proximal biceps tendon with \n6cm tear, and DJD in the AC joint.  He referred the Claimant for an orthopedic surgeon evaluation.    \n An MRI of the Claimant’s left shoulder was performed on April 6, 2023.  Dr. Douglas A. \nTrippe rendered the following IMPRESSION:   \n1.  Acute full-thickness tear and retraction of the proximal biceps tendon.  Tendon appears     \n     retracted approximately 6 cm.  \n2.  Diffuse abnormal signal of the superior labrum consistent with tear and/or edema.   \n     Discrete tear at the base of labrum extends both anteriorly and posteriorly. \n3.  Left supraspinatus tendon: Advanced tendinosis with partial tear/articular surface    \n    erosion. \n4.  Left infraspinatus tendon: Moderate tendinosis with tiny partial insertional tear. \n5. Moderate DJD at the AC joint with mild subacromial spurring.  \n \n Per a Form AR-N, the Claimant made a report of injury on April 11, 2023.  Specifically,   \nthe Claimant provided a brief discussion of the cause of injury: “I was swinging an 8-pound sledge \nhammer from left to right in midswing my left shoulder popped twice.”  \n On  April  21,  2023,  Dr.  Feit  Sheldon authored  an Age  of  Injury  Report Abnormal \nRadiological Findings.   \n CONCLUSION: The findings are chronic in nature. \n SUMMARY: \n       1.  Impingement on the supraspinatus muscle secondary to hypertrophic change at the \n                       at the acromioclavicular joint-chronic. \n       2.  Partial tearing of the distal supraspinatus tendon-chronic. \n       3.  Joint effusion-chronic. \n       4.  Superior labral fraying-chronic.  \n \n Dr. Darius F. Mitchell evaluated the Claimant’s left shoulder on  May  3,  2023.   The \nClaimant  reported  a  history  of  being  injured  on  March  17,  while  swinging  a  10-pound \n\nBRIGGS– H302750 \n19 \n \nsledgehammer, when he felt a pop in his upper arm.  The Claimant appeared with weakness with \nsupination and flexion pain.  Dr. Mitchell opined in relevant part. \n IMAGING \n            My interpretation of the films is MRI that is MRI that shows a retracted acute proximal \n            biceps tendon rupture with coiling of the proximal biceps tendon and a residual superior \n labral  stump  also  shows  rotator  cuff  changes  in  the  articular  side  of the  superior  labral \n degenerative change of the AC joint.     \n \n PLAN: \nThis gentleman needs surgical intervention.  He works as a welder he has a proximal biceps \nrupture and will have weakness.  He stated to me that his work comp is trying to decide \nwhether or not this is an acute injury.  Per the patient this is because the MRI report says \nthere is a retraction of the long head of the biceps obviously whoever is interpreting this \ndata does not understand the way a long head of a biceps tendon injury occurs rotator cuff \ntears  that  are  retracted  dealing  with  chronic  injuries  but  biceps  tendon  ruptures  or  other \ntendons that have retractions have nothing to do with chronicity there is edema and blood \nin his biceps tendon groove there is retraction because it acutely snapped while swinging \nthis sledge hammer. This is something that occurred at work, his biceps was normal the \nday he showed up and now he does not have the long head of the biceps attachment and \nhas a Popeye sign.  I do not know how more clear this could be this occurred while he was \nat  work  unless  you  just  do  not  understand  pathoanatomy.    I  believe he  needs  a  biceps \ntenodesis,  SLAP  debridement,  bursectomy  and  probably  distal  clavicle  excision.    I  have \nsuggested that if he does not get this approved that he should hire a lawyer because this is \na clear-cut-case of work-related trauma.  Risks, benefits, and convalescence were discussed \nto  include  but  not  limited  to  infection,  would  complications,  DVT,  PE,  disability,  blood \nvessel and nerve injury and up to an including death.      \n \nAn Operative Report was completed by Dr. Mitchell on May 19, 2023. \nPre-Op Diagnosis \nLeft proximal biceps rupture \n \nPost-op Diagnosis \nBiceps rupture, proximal \n \nProcedure Performed: \n1.  Arthroscopic subacromial decompression. \n2.  Arthroscopic distal clavicle excision. \n3.  Arthroscopic SLAP debridement. \n4.  Arthroscopic bursectomy. \n5.  Open subpectoralis biceps tenodesis. \n \n\nBRIGGS– H302750 \n20 \n \n On May 31, 2023, the Claimant saw Cody Ray, FNP-BC, for follow-up of his left shoulder \narthroscopy,  with  Dr.  Mitchell two  weeks  ago.   Operative  findings were discussed  with  the \nClaimant.  He seemed to be doing quite well.  Ray noted that the Claimant also underwent proximal \nbiceps tenodesis.  He had a proximal biceps rupture.  The Claimant had been doing fairly well with \nminimal  complaints  of  pain.    They  discussed  limiting  weight  that  he  uses  on  his  left  upper \nextremity to no more than a coffee cup.  Since the Claimant’s work did not have light duty, Ray \ngave  the  Claimant  another  four  weeks  off  work.    He  was  scheduled  to  start  physical  therapy  to \nwork  on his range of motion.  Ray’s assessment was “Biceps rupture, proximal, left, initial \nencounter.”     \n The Claimant underwent physical therapy at Wadley Regional Medical Center beginning \non June 16, 2023, through August 15, 2023. \n On September 6, 2023, the Claimant returned to Dr. Mitchell for follow-up of his rotator \ncuff repair.  Per these progress notes, the Claimant was five months out of rotator cuff repair.  The \nClaimant was given an injection, but it really did not give him a lot of relief.  He stated that this \nwas  most  likely  scar.  Dr. Mitchell’s assessment was “Biceps rupture, proximal, left, on initial \nencounter.”  At that point, Dr. Mitchell’s concern was that he possibly had a rotator cuff tear, for \nwhich  he  recommended an MRI  arthrogram  to  evaluate  his  left  shoulder.  He  continued  the \nClaimant’s off work restrictions.    \n The Claimant underwent a left shoulder arthrogram MRI with contrast, on September 29, \n2023, with the following impression: \n  1. High- grade partial-thickness articular surface tear of the subscapularis tendon  \n       superimposed on mild tendinosis. \n  2. High-grade tear of the intra-articular long head of the biceps tendon. \n                        3. Mild supraspinatus insertional tendinosis. \n  4. Mild glenohumeral and moderate acromioclavicular osteoarthritis.    \n           5. Mild subacromial/subdeltoid bursitis.  \n\nBRIGGS– H302750 \n21 \n \n On that same day, the Claimant underwent a LEFT shoulder arthrography: \n \n  FINDINGS: There has been opacification LEFT glenohumeral joint.  There is no  \n  abnormal extracapsular contrast seen.  Scout film demonstrates calcification  \n  adjacent to the humeral head consistent with calcific tendinitis. \n \n  Impression: Successful opacification LEFT glenohumeral joint prior to an MRI  \n                        Arthrogram.  Plain film findings consistent with calcific tendinitis.   \n \n Dr.  Mitchell  saw  the Claimant  for a follow-up visit for  discussion and  interpretation  of \nMRI of the left shoulder, on October 16, 2023.  At that time, Dr. Mitchell’s interpretation of the \nfilms was inflammation of the subscapularis and supraspinatus, at the upper border there is a partial \ntear.  Absent biceps tendon with an obvious biceps tendon tenodesis in the humeral shaft.  SLAP \ndebridement as not as well as distal clavicle excision.  No sign of an acute rotator cuff tear.  His \nassessment was “Biceps rupture, proximal, left, initial encounter.”  At that point, they planned an \ninjection in his neck.  With a normal MRI assume that he does not have a rotator cuff insertional \nissue nor does he have any sign of atrophy other than Grade 1 in his cross-sectional anatomy of \nsupraspinatus.  He recommended that they proceed with the neck injection because he believed his \ncondition was most likely neurologic in nature.   Dr. Mitchell directed the Claimant not to return \nto work until cleared by a physician. \n On December 6, 2023, Dr. Harold Fite authored a clinic note.   Per these medical notes, the \nClaimant presented  for  back pain.  Dr.  Mitchell  referred  the  Claimant  for  evaluation  of  his  left \nshoulder pain as well as pain the upper extremities and numbness in the hands at times.  It appears \nthat  Dr.  Mitchell  was  concerned  there  may  be  a component  of  cervical  radiculopathy  involved \nsince the Claimant had continued pain with the use of his shoulder and weakness following left \nshoulder surgery.    On physical examination, the Claimant had fairly maintained cervical range of \nmotion, pain limited to range of the left shoulder.  Positive Tinel’s test of at the wrist bilaterally, \n\nBRIGGS– H302750 \n22 \n \nupper extremity strength and sensation were grossly intact.  As a result, Dr. Fite recommended a \ncervical MRI.  He also discussed the possibility of epidural steroid injections as a treatment option.  \n The Claimant was  evaluated  by  Dr. Ifequar Syed  on  January  29, 2024, due  to  a  chief \ncomplaint of chronic low back pain.  Dr. Syed stated that his chronic low back pain could be related \nto his job as a welder although the Claimant reported a history of back pain since his teens.  The \nClaimant was reported to have undergone lumbar discectomy in June 2011 and a lumbar fusion in \n2012.  He continued the Claimant’s medication regimen while he still continues to recover from \nhis surgery.  Dr. Syed noted that he needed a copy of the recent left shoulder MRI.  \n On  April  10,  2024,  the Claimant  returned  for  a  follow-up  evaluation  with  Dr.  Syed  and \nmedication  review.      He recommended  that  the  Claimant see  a  neurosurgeon  again.    Dr.  Syed \nopined that the Claimant’s problem seemed to be centered around his left shoulder and aggravated \nby both active and passive movements.  However, Dr. Syed stated that a cervical MRI might be \nneeded to rule out any contributing pain from the cervical spine.    \n The  Claimant  underwent  a  cervical  epidural  steroid  injection  at  C5-6  level  interlaminar \napproach with fluoroscopic guidance on June 21, 2025. \n Dr. Syed saw the Claimant for a follow-up evaluation and medication review on August \n26, 2024.  The Claimant reported that he did not have much relief with the left shoulder injection.  \nHe was still having pain and limited range of movements at the left shoulder.  Also, the Claimant \nreported reduced abduction, abduction and extension of the shoulder which is also associated with \npain.  The Claimant was told there was a tear, but it was uncertain whether this was the cause of \nhis continued pain.  Dr. Syed opined that the Claimant’s problems seem to be centered around his \nleft shoulder and aggravated by both active and passive movements.  \n\nBRIGGS– H302750 \n23 \n \n Dr. Richard B. Sharp evaluated the Claimant on September 23, 2024, for a determination \nof maximum medical  improvement  and  an  impairment  rating for  his shoulder.   The  Claimant \ndescribed the painful range of motion at the left shoulder, which was accompanied by weakness.  \nHe is unable to lift over 5 to 10 pounds on the left.  He is right-handed.  Functionally the Claimant \nwas noted to have difficulty with overhead movement and heavy lifting on the left.  Pursuant to \nDr. Sharp’s physical examination of the Claimant, his assessment was “1.  Strain of muscle of the \nrotator cuff of left shoulder.  2. Strain of fascia of other parts of biceps of left arm.  3. SLAP lesion \nof left shoulder.” He opined that his injury to his shoulder was consistent with the work-related \ninjury he described of “slinging a sledgehammer.” At that time, Dr. Sharp opined that the Claimant \nwas  at  maximal  medical  as  of  September  24, 2024, for  his  left  shoulder  surgery.  According  to \nthese clinical notes, Dr. Sharp stated that no further intervention to the Claimant’s left shoulder \nwas needed.  Based on page 44, figure 41, the Claimant would receive 4% UEI for left shoulder \nabduction 90 degrees and 0% for normal abduction.  Specifically, Dr. Sharp opined “Based on the \nAMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fourth Edition, combining these would \ngive a 4% upper extremity impairment rating, or a 2% whole percent impairment rating.”   \n The Claimant underwent an impairment rating on April 8, 2025, by Dr. Joe Hugghins for \nhis  left  shoulder.    Per  these  notes,  the  purpose  of  Dr.  Hugghins  physical  examination was  to \ndetermine two issues: “1.   Whether  the  Claimant  reached  maximum  medical  improvement.    2. \nAppropriate impairment should b e assessed.  His physical examination of the Claimant revealed \nlimited range of motion in the left shoulder compared to the right.  Dr. Hugghins stated that all \nR.O.M.  studies  using  dual  inclinometer  or  goniometer  as  required  as  required  by  TWCC  as \noutlined in the AMA Guides to Permanent Impairment, Fourth Edition.  He stated that the Claimant \nreached clinical maximum medical improvement on August 26, 2024, for the left bicep injury that \n\nBRIGGS– H302750 \n24 \n \noccurred on March 16, 2023.  Dr. Hugghins stated that there were no diagnosis related impairments \nfor surgically repaired biceps tendon rupture.  He utilized physical examination findings to assess \nimpairment.  According to this note, Dr. Hugghins utilized the rating motion values obtained in \nhis  office  on  April  8,  because  they  most  closely  resemble  the  range  values  documented  in  Dr. \nSyed’s  evaluation  on  August  26,  2024.   To  summarize,  Dr.  Hugghins  used  the  following \ninformation to reach his assessment “... According to Figure 38 maximum left shoulder flexion of \n155 ° yields 1% Upper Extremity Impairment and maximum extension of 32° also yields 1% Upper \nExtremity Impairment.  The sum of these values is 2% Upper Extremity Impairment.  According \nto Figure 41, maximum abduction of 88 ° yields 4% Upper Extremity Impairment and maximum \nabduction of 42° yields 0% Upper Extremity Impairment.  The sum of these values is 4% Upper \nExtremity Impairment.  According to Figure 44, the maximum internal rotation of 62° yields 2% \nUpper  Extremity  Impairment,  and  maximum  external rotation  74° yields  0%  Upper  Extremity \nImpairment.  The sum of these values is 2% Upper Extremity Impairment.  When the 2% Upper \nExtremity Impairment for flexion/extension is added to the 4% Upper Extremity Impairment for \nabduction/adduction  and  the  2%  Upper  Extremity  Impairment  for  internal/external  rotation,  the \nsum  of  these  values  is  8%  Upper  Extremity  Impairment...  When  the  8%  Upper  Extremity \nImpairment for the left shoulder is added to the 0% Upper Extremity Impairment for the left elbow, \nthe total Upper Extremity Impairment is 8% ... According to Table 3 on page 20, 8% Upper \nExtremity Impairment converts to 5% Whole Person Impairment.             \n                                \n \n \n \n\nBRIGGS– H302750 \n25 \n \n         ADJUDICATION \n \n A.  Compensability- Specific Incident Right Shoulder Injury   \n The Claimant has alleged that he sustained a specific incident injury to his right shoulder \nduring and while in the course and scope of his employment with the respondent-employer, UTC \nRailcar Repair Service on March 16, 2023.     \n In that regard, for the Claimant to establish a compensable injury as a result of a specific \nincident, the following requirements of Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(4)(A)(i) (Repl. 2012), must be \nestablished:  (1)  proof  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  of  an  injury  arising  out  of  and  in  the \ncourse of employment; (2) proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the injury caused internal \nor external physical harm to the body which required medical services or resulted in disability or \ndeath; (3) medical evidence supported by objective findings, as defined in Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-\n102 (4)(D), establishing the injury; and (4) proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the injury \nwas caused by a specific incident and is identifiable by time  and place of occurrence.   Mikel v. \nEngineered Specialty Plastics, 56 Ark. App. 126, 938 S.W.2d 876 (1997).   \n A  compensable  injury  must  be proven by  medical  evidence  supported  by  objective \nfindings.  Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(D) (Repl. 2012).  “Objective findings” are those findings \nthat  cannot  come  under  the  voluntary  control  of  the  patient.   Id.  §  11-9-102(16).  The  element \n“arising out of . . . [the] employment” relates to the causal connection between the Claimant’s \ninjury  and their employment.   City  of  El  Dorado  v.  Sartor,  21  Ark.  App.  143,  729  S.W.2d  430 \n(1987).    An  injury  arises  out  of  a Claimant’s employment “when a causal connection between \nwork conditions and the injury is apparent to the rational mind.” Id. \n If the Claimant does not show by a preponderance of the evidence any of the requirements \nfor proving compensability, compensation must be denied.  Mikel v. Engineered Specialty Plastics, \n\nBRIGGS– H302750 \n26 \n \n56 Ark. App. 126, 938 S.W.2d 876 (1997).  This standard means evidence that has greater weight \nor more convincing force.  Barre v. Hoffman, 2009 Ark. 373, 326 S.W.3d 415; Smith v. Magnet \nCove Barium Corp., 212 Ark. 491, 206 S.W.2d 442 (1947). \n The  employer  takes  the  employee  as  he  finds  him.   Conway  Convalescent  Center  v. \nMurphree, 266 Ark. 985, 585 S.W. 2d 462 (Ark. App. 1979).  A pre-existing disease or infirmity \ndoes  not  disqualify  a  claim  if  the  employment  aggravated,  accelerated,  or  combined  with  the \ndisease  or  infirmity  to  produce  the  disability  for  which  compensation  is  sought.   See,  Nashville \nLivestock Commission v. Cox, 302 Ark. 69, 787 SW. 2d 664 (1990); Conway Convalescent Center \nv.  Murphree, 266  Ark.  985,  585  S.W.  2d  462  (Ark. App.  1979); St. Vincent  Medical  Center  v. \nBrown,  53  Ark.  App.  30,  917  S.W.2d  550  (1996).  An  increase  in  symptoms  of a pre-existing \ndegenerative condition is sufficient to establish a compensable injury.  Parker v. Atlantic Research \nCorp., 87 Ark. App. 145, 189 S.W. 3d 449 (2004).    \n An aggravation is a new injury resulting from an independent incident, and being a new \ninjury with an independent cause, it must meet the definition of a compensable injury in order to \nestablish compensability of the aggravation.  Hickman v. Kellog, Brown  & Root, 372 Ark. 501, \n277 S.W. 3d 160 (2007).   \n After reviewing the evidence as a whole, without giving the benefit of the doubt to either \nparty,  I  find  that  the Claimant  has  proven  by  a  preponderance  of  the credible evidence  that  he \nsustained  a  specific  incident  injury  to  his  shoulder  on March  16,  2023 in the  form  of “a left \nproximal bicep rupture.”  \n As  noted  above,  the  courts  have  held  in  several  cases  that  an  increase  in  symptoms \nfollowing a work-related accident is sufficient proof to prove compensability of the aggravation.  \nThis is the identical situation with the Claimant’s left shoulder condition following the March 16, \n\nBRIGGS– H302750 \n27 \n \n2023, incident, which occurred while he was slinging a 10-pound sledgehammer.  His left shoulder \npain  following  this  incident  was  severe  and  sharp  in intensity.   It  is clearly understood  that  the \nClaimant  suffered  from  pre-existing buritis of  the  left  shoulder  for  which  he  sought  medical \ntreatment.   The  Claimant  underwent  prior  non-surgical  treatment  modalities  consisting  of \ninjections.  This treatment provided the Claimant with relief of his symptoms of pain and stiffness, \nand he continued with his normal employment duties and activities of daily living.  His testimony, \nwhich I found to be credible proves that he never missed work due to left shoulder problems and \nhe did not recall ever having to undergo an MRI of the left shoulder prior to his work incident.   \nHowever,  on March 16,  2023,  the  Claimant  was  involved  in  a  work  incident,  which  caused  a \nsignificant  worsening  of  his  left  shoulder condition  that  differed  from  his  average  stiffness  and \npain.  The Claimant reported that his pain following the work incident, which was frequent, very \nsevere, and  sharp.  According  to  the  Claimant,  while  swinging  a  10-pound sledgehammer to \nremove  brakes,  his  shoulder  popped  twice,  which  was  accompanied  by  an immediate onset  of \nshoulder pain.  He immediately stopped working and reported his injury to the lead person.   \n The Claimant sought initial treatment for his shoulder injury from the company doctor, Dr. \nRaker, with minimal improvement in his left shoulder symptoms.  The Respondents paid for this \ntreatment  and  thereafter  they  controverted  the  claim  in  its  entirety.  At  which  point,  Dr.  Raker \nrecommended that the Claimant undergo an MRI of the left shoulder.  \n I am persuaded that the Claimant’s description of the work incident is consistent with the \ntype  of  injury  he  sustained to  his  shoulder.   Specifically,  on  April  6, 2023, an  MRI  of  the \nClaimant’s left shoulder revealed, among other things, “An acute full-thickness tear and retraction \nof the proximal biceps tendon...” These abnormalities are sufficient to establish an injury to the \nClaimant’s left shoulder by  medical  evidence  supported  by  objective  findings.    Although  Dr. \n\nBRIGGS– H302750 \n28 \n \nSheldon opined that these findings along with the other findings are all chronic in nature, I am not \npersuaded  that  this  is  the  case  here.    Given  the  fact  that  the  magnitude  of  the Claimant’s left \nshoulder pain significantly intensified in severity, sharpness and frequency leads me to conclude \nthat he sustained a work-related left shoulder injury.  As such minimal weight has been assigned \nto his expert opinion in this regard. However, I have assigned significant weight to Dr. Mitchell’s \nexpert  opinion  wherein  he  stated  that  the  Claimant’s  work  activities  caused  the  above \nabnormalities and his need for left shoulder repair surgery, which he performed on May 19.  Dr. \nMitchell provided an expert opinion wherein he stated that the Claimant sustained a work-related \ninjury.  I am persuaded that his expert opinion should be assigned significant weight because it is \nbased  on a  well-reasoned  explanation  for the  basis  of this  being  a  work-related  injury.  Per  Dr. \nMitchell’s reasoning, there was blood and edema in the Claimant’s bicep tendons groove and there \nwas retraction because it acutely snapped while swinging this sledgehammer.  This accounts for \nthe Claimant’s increase in symptoms following his work-related incident.   \n Therefore,  based  on  all  of  the  foregoing,  I  find  that  the  Claimant  has met  all  of  the \nrequirements for establishing a compensable injury to his left shoulder on March 16, 2023.  Thus, \nI therefore find that the Claimant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he sustained a \ncompensable injury to his left shoulder on March 16, during and in the course of his employment \nwith the respondent-employer/UTC Railcar Repair Services. \n I realize that the Claimant’s coworkers made written statements about the Claimant’s work \nincident.  Considering that the Claimant was not  given the opportunity to  cross-examine and/or \nconfront  these  individuals  about  their statements,  I  have  attached  minimal  weight  to  these \nstatements.   \n \n\nBRIGGS– H302750 \n29 \n \n \n B.  Medical Benefits \nAn employer shall promptly provide for an injured employee such medical treatment as \nmay be reasonably necessary in connection with the injury received by the employee.  Ark. Code \nAnn. § 11-9-508(a).  The Claimant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence \nthat the medical treatment is reasonably necessary.  Stone v. Dollar General Stores, 91 Ark. App. \n260, 209 S.W. 3d 445 (2005).   \nPreponderance of the evidence means the evidence having greater weight or convincing \nforce.  Metropolitan Nat’l Bank v. La Sher Oil Co., 81 Ark. App. 269, 101 S.W.3d 252 (2003). \nBased  on  my  review  of  the  record  as  a  whole,  I  find  the  Claimant  proved by  a \npreponderance of the evidence that the medical treatment of record was reasonably necessary in \nconnection  with  the compensable left  shoulder  injury  received  by  the  Claimant  on  March 16, \n2023.   \nAll the treatment modalities were used to diagnosis and treat the Claimant’s left shoulder \ninjury, including the surgery performed by Dr. Mitchell on May 19, 2023, along with the physical \ntherapy sessions,  follow-up  care appointments,  diagnostic  tests, and the  other subsequent \nevaluations for his left shoulder. \nPer Dr. Sharp, no further medical treatment is indicated for the Claimant’s shoulder injury.  \nC. Temporary Total Disability Compensation  \nHere, the Claimant contends that he is entitled to temporary total disability compensation \nfor his shoulder injury beginning April 28, 2023, and continuing until September 23, 2024. \n\nBRIGGS– H302750 \n30 \n \nThe Claimant sustained an unscheduled injury to his shoulder on March 17, 2023, while \nperforming his employment duties for UTC Railcar Repair Services.  An injured employee for an \nunscheduled injury is entitled to temporary total disability compensation during the time that he is \nwithin his healing period and totally incapacitated from earning wages.  Arkansas State Highway \nand Transportation Department v. Breshears, 272 Ark. 244, 613 S.W.2d 392 (1981).  The healing \nperiod is that period for healing of the injury which continues until the employee is as far restored \nas the permanent character of the injury will permit.  Nix v. Wilson World Hotel, 46 Ark. App. 303, \n879 S.W.2d 457 (1994).  If the underlying condition causing the disability has become stable and \nnothing further in the way of treatment will improve that condition, the healing period has ended.  \nId.  Temporary total disability cannot be awarded after the Claimant’s healing period has ended.   \n In  the  present  case,  the  Claimant  remained  in  his  healing  period  for  his  compensable \nshoulder injury beginning March 16, 2023, and continuing until September 24, 2024.  In fact, the \nparties have stipulated that the Claimant reached maximum medical improvement for his shoulder \ninjury on September 24, 2024.  As such I find that the evidence shows that the Claimant healing \nperiod  began  on  March  16, 2023, and continued until  September  24,  2024.    Also, the  Claimant \nremained  under  the  care  and  treatment  of  various  doctors beginning  on  March  17, 2023, and \ncontinued to do so during this period in question.  \n Moreover,  the  evidence  shows  that  the  Claimant  was  totally  incapacitated  from  earning \nwages during this same time frame. The Claimant was taken off work and/or placed on restricted \nwork duty during this time.   The Respondents initially provided the Claimant with light duty work, \nbut  his  option  was stopped after  they controverted the  claim.   Following  his  work  incident,  the \nClaimant  complained  of  limited  range  of  motion  and  severe  pain  in  his  left  shoulder.    After  an \nMRI revealed a bicep tendon rupture injury, the Claimant underwent left shoulder surgery on May \n\nBRIGGS– H302750 \n31 \n \n19,  2023,  and  thereafter  attended  several  physical  therapy  sessions.   Here,  the  evidence  clearly \nshows  that  the  Claimant  was  totally  incapacitated  from  earning  his  regular  wages  at  least  from \nApril 28, 2023, through September 23, 2024.   \n Therefore, based on all the foregoing, I find that the Claimant proved by a preponderance \nof  the  evidence  his entitlement to  temporary  total  disability compensation from  April  28,  2023, \nthrough September 23, 2024.        \n D.  Anatomical Impairment Rating     \n The Claimant contends that he sustained a 4% impairment due to his compensable left \nshoulder injury of March 16, 2023.     \n  Permanent impairment generally is any functional or anatomical loss remaining after the \nhealing period has been reached.  Johnson v. Gen. Dynamics, 46 Ark. App. 188, 878 S.W.2d 411 \n(1994).    The  Commission  has  adopted  the American  Medical  Association (AMA) Guides  to  the \nEvaluation of Permanent Impairment (4\nth\n ed. 1993) to be used in assessing anatomical impairment.  \nSee Commission Rule 099.34; Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-522(g) (Repl. 2002).  It is the Commission’s \nduty, using the Guides, to determine whether the Claimant has proved he is entitled to a permanent \nanatomical impairment.  Polk County v. Jones, 74 Ark. App. 159, 47 S.W.3d 904 (2001).      \n Any determination of the existence or extent of physical impairment shall be supported by \nobjective and measurable physical mental findings.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-704(c)(1) (B) (Repl. \n2012).  Objective findings are those findings which cannot come under the voluntary control of \nthe patient.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(16)(A)(i).   \n Permanent  benefits  shall  be  awarded  only  upon  a  determination  that  the  compensable \ninjury was the major cause of the disability or impairment.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(F)(ii)(a) \n(Repl. 2012).  “Major cause” means “more than fifty percent (50%) of the cause,” and a finding of \n\nBRIGGS– H302750 \n32 \n \nmajor cause shall be proven according to a preponderance of the evidence.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-\n9-102(14).    Preponderance  of  the  evidence  means  the  evidence  having  greater  weight  or \nconvincing force.  Metropolitan Nat’l Bank v. La Sher Oil Co., 81 Ark. App. 269, 101 S.W.3d 252 \n(2003).   Medical  opinion  addressing  compensability  and  permanent  impairment  must  be  stated \nwithin a reasonable degree of medical certainty.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102 (16) (B).   \nI find that the Claimant sustained a 5% impairment for his compensable left shoulder of \nMarch 16, 2023.  On May 19, 2024, Dr.  Mitchell performed left shoulder surgery as described \nabove.  The Claimant had no prior left shoulder injuries or complaints, although his MRI of April \n2024  of  the  left  shoulder  revealed  pre-existing  degenerative  changes.   The  Claimant  had \noccasionally treated for bursitis, with injections that provided him with relief from his symptoms, \nand he was able to continue his work and home activities without any difficulties.   However, the \nClaimant  had  previously  experienced  stiffness  and  minor  aches  and  pain  of the  left  shoulder.  \nHowever,  following  his  work  incident,  the symptoms  and  complaints of the  Claimant’s  left \nshoulder  was  significantly  magnified  in  intensity  and  frequency.   The  Claimant’s  treating \nphysician,  Dr.  Mitchell  attributed  the  Claimant  left  biceps  rupture  injury  to  his  employment \nactivities of March 16.  In addition to this, both Drs. Sharp and Hugghins related the Claimant’s \nleft bicep tendon injury to his work injury.    \nHowever, both Drs. Sharp (his assessment was 2% impairment rating) and Hugghins (he \nfound that the Claimant sustained a 5% rating) have assessed the Claimant with an impairment for \nhis injury.  I have assigned minimal weight to Dr. Sharp’s expert analysis of 2% whole person \nimpairment rating because it does not take into account all of the Claimant’s resulting deficits from \nhis compensable left shoulder injury.  Dr. Hugghins’ assessment is well-reasoned and comports \nwith my review of the Guides.    \n\nBRIGGS– H302750 \n33 \n \nOn April 8, 2025, Dr. Hugghins assessed the Claimant with a 5% permanent anatomical \nimpairment for his biceps injury, using the AMA Guides (4\nth\n ed. 1993), at page 3/20, Table 3, which \nprovides for the Relationship of Impairment of the Upper Extremity to Impairment of the Whole.  \nPer Table  3,  an  upper  extremity  impairment  of  8%  converts  to  a  5% impairment to the whole \nperson.   Dr.  Hugghins stated  that  he  utilized his physical  examination  findings  to  assess  the \nClaimant’s impairment to the shoulder.  Specifically, his physical examination of the Claimant’s \nleft shoulder when compared to the right was found to be limited in all R.O.M. studies performed \nusing dual inclinometer or goniometer as required by the AMA Guides to Permanent Impairment, \nFourth  Edition. The  Claimant’s  own  credible  testimony  is  consistent  with  Dr. Hugghins’ \nconclusion and other probative evidence of record demonstrating deficits of his limited range of \nmotion in the left upper extremity.  As such, I have assigned significant evidentiary weight and \nprobative value to Dr. Hugghins’ expert opinion.   \nAccordingly, I find that the Claimant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that \nhis March 16, 2023, accidental injury was the major cause of his 5% permanent partial anatomical \nimpairment.   The  supporting objective  medical  findings  include  the range  of  motion  deficits as \ndocumented by Dr. Hugghins during his April 2025 physical examination of the Claimant’s left \nupper extremity region. \n Per my own review of the entire record and the Guides, I find that Dr. Hugghins’ assessment \nof a 5% permanent anatomical impairment for the Claimant’s compensable left shoulder injury of \nMarch 16, 2024, comports with the Guides and my own review of the Guides, and is thus valid.       \nI therefore find that the Claimant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he sustained \na 5% anatomical impairment on the body as a whole for his compensable left shoulder injury.  The \nRespondents are liable for payment of these indemnity benefits. \n\nBRIGGS– H302750 \n34 \n \n E.  Wage Loss \n The Claimant contends that he sustained a 25% wage loss disability due to his compensable \nleft shoulder injury of March 16, 2025. \n The  wage-loss  factor  is  the  extent  to  which  a  compensable  injury  has  affected  the \nClaimant’s ability to earn a livelihood.  Rutherford v. Mid-Delta Cmty.  Servs., Inc., 102 Ark. App. \n317, 285 S.W. 3d 248 (2008).  In considering claims for permanent partial disability benefits in \nexcess of the employee’s percentage of permanent physical impairment, the Commission may take \ninto account, in addition to the percentage of permanent physical impairment, such factors as the \nemployee’s age, education, work experience, and other factors reasonably expected to affect his \nfuture earning capacity. Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-522 (b) (1). \n The Claimant is 53 years of age.  His age is somewhat advanced, and he  has performed \nlaborious job duties all his life, primarily as a welder.  The Claimant has a very limited educational \nbackground  which  includes  some  resource  classes.    He  has  no  special skills  or training.    The \nClaimant can do simple math, and he reads on an extremely basic level.  He has limited range of \nmotion in his shoulder due to his compensable injury of March 16, 2023.  He is unable to return to \nwork  as  a welder  but believes  he could operate  heavy  equipment.    The  Claimant  has  been \ndiagnosed  with attention  deficit  disorder  and  dyslexia.    He  also  failed  two  grades while  in \nelementary school.  There is no evidence showing that the Claimant has  any transferable skills.  \nHis ability to obtain employment earning wages at the level that earned at UTC has been reduced \nsignificantly by his left shoulder injury.  Although the Claimant has done several searches for jobs \nonline, he  has  not  been  called  for  an  interview.    The  Claimant  has  applied  for  Social  Security \ndisability.  He has problems getting in certain positions due to his shoulder injury to perform the \ntype jobs he previously worked as a welder.  The Claimant can perform daily activities of living \n\nBRIGGS– H302750 \n35 \n \nand is able to operate a vehicle.  He also does his own yard work using a zero-turn lawn mower.  \nThe  Claimant  sustained  a  5%  permanent  impairment  to  the  left  shoulder because  of his \ncompensable injury.  As a result, the Claimant has been found to be limited in his right shoulder.  \nThese deficits include limited to range of motion and impairment for limited abduction/adduction.     \n Based on the Claimant’s advanced age, limited education, prior work experience, and other \nfactors reasonably expected to affect his future earning capacity, I find that the Claimant proved \nhis entitlement to wage-loss disability in the amount of 22% over and above his 5% impairment \nrating due to his compensable left bicep injury of March 16, 2023.          \n F.  Attorney’s Fee \n The parties stipulated that the Respondents have controverted this claim in its entirety.  As \nsuch, the Claimant’s attorney is entitled to a controverted attorney’s fee on all indemnity benefits \nawarded herein pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-715 (Repl. 2012). \n                          AWARD \n Respondents are directed to pay benefits in accordance with the findings of fact set forth \nabove.  All accrued sums shall be paid in lump sum without discount, and this award shall earn \ninterest at the legal rate until paid, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-809(Repl 2002).  See Couch \nv.  First State Bank of Newport, 49 Ark. App. 102, 898 S.W.2d 57 (1995).  Pursuant to Ark. Code \nAnn. §11-9-715 (Repl. 2012), the Claimant’s attorney is entitled to a 25% attorney’s fee on the \nindemnity benefits awarded herein.   \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n                                                                      \n                                      ______________________ \n                         CHANDRA L. BLACK \n                                Administrative Law Judge \n\nBRIGGS– H302750 \n36","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO.:H302750 KEVIN BRIGGS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT UTC RAILCAR REPAIR SERVICES, LLC, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY/ CONSTITUTION STATE SERVICES, LLC, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED AUGUST 5, 2025 Hearing held before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:37:01.930Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H302750-2025-08-05","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/BRIGGS_KEVIN_H302750_20250805.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}